While I am reluctant to take issue with a classmate (Letter from Bill Hewitt '74, "White House DEI Directives," PAW, April 2025), I strongly disagree with his recommendation that Princeton surrender to President Trump's extortion. As former Harvard president and frequent critic of university policies, Lawrence Summers, recently noted (L. Summers, “If Powerful Places Like Harvard Don’t Stand Up to Trump, Who Can?,”The New York Times, April 3, 2025), “each act of capitulation makes the next one more likely. Each act of rectitude reverberates.”
Fortunately, President Eisgruber agrees. Calling the recent Trump threats to Columbia University “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s,” Eisgruber, like Summers, strongly criticized “using grants that apply to Columbia science departments as a cudgel to force changes to a completely unrelated department that the government apparently regards as objectionable.” How disrupting federally funded research to cure childhood cancer, harness fusion energy, or reverse Alzheimer’s disease actually contributes to making America great again eludes me.
While undoubtedly some “diversity, equity, and inclusion” efforts may not be well designed or perfectly implemented, I still view those words as core American values, the current manifestation of E Pluribus Unum, out of many one. Even though only about one in eight of our classmates were American students of color, Princeton was a more diverse community than I had previously experienced — and probably would have been even more so if “legacy” students like me had not been admitted due to their family ties — and I benefited from that diversity.
All universities should conscientiously scrutinize the fairness of their admission policies, the robustness of their free speech climate and the rigor of their scholarship — as I believe Princeton is doing. But capitulation to President Trump will not advance any of these educational policies and will only encourage the bully to ask for more.
While I am reluctant to take issue with a classmate (Letter from Bill Hewitt '74, "White House DEI Directives," PAW, April 2025), I strongly disagree with his recommendation that Princeton surrender to President Trump's extortion. As former Harvard president and frequent critic of university policies, Lawrence Summers, recently noted (L. Summers, “If Powerful Places Like Harvard Don’t Stand Up to Trump, Who Can?,” The New York Times, April 3, 2025), “each act of capitulation makes the next one more likely. Each act of rectitude reverberates.”
Fortunately, President Eisgruber agrees. Calling the recent Trump threats to Columbia University “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s,” Eisgruber, like Summers, strongly criticized “using grants that apply to Columbia science departments as a cudgel to force changes to a completely unrelated department that the government apparently regards as objectionable.” How disrupting federally funded research to cure childhood cancer, harness fusion energy, or reverse Alzheimer’s disease actually contributes to making America great again eludes me.
While undoubtedly some “diversity, equity, and inclusion” efforts may not be well designed or perfectly implemented, I still view those words as core American values, the current manifestation of E Pluribus Unum, out of many one. Even though only about one in eight of our classmates were American students of color, Princeton was a more diverse community than I had previously experienced — and probably would have been even more so if “legacy” students like me had not been admitted due to their family ties — and I benefited from that diversity.
All universities should conscientiously scrutinize the fairness of their admission policies, the robustness of their free speech climate and the rigor of their scholarship — as I believe Princeton is doing. But capitulation to President Trump will not advance any of these educational policies and will only encourage the bully to ask for more.